Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by the defendant challenging two judgments from the Supreme Court, Kings County, both dated November 23, 1993. The first judgment, arising from Indictment No. 7382/92, included convictions for several counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance following a jury verdict. The defendant's appeal included a challenge to the denial of a motion to suppress physical evidence. The court modified this judgment by reversing the conviction for possession in the seventh degree, vacating the sentence, and dismissing the count, affirming the rest of the judgment. The second judgment, under Indictment No. 14814/92, stemmed from a guilty plea and was affirmed without change. Probable cause for the arrest and search was supported by testimony from an undercover officer who witnessed the defendant's drug transactions. The dismissal of the lesser-inclusory count was justified under CPL 300.40 (3)(b). Other arguments presented by the defendant were either unpreserved or without merit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Guilty Plea Convictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the judgment under Indictment No. 14814/92, which resulted from a guilty plea for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Reasoning: The judgment under Indictment No. 14814/92 was affirmed without modification.
Dismissal of Lesser-Inclusory Countssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree upon acknowledging it as a lesser-inclusory count.
Reasoning: The defendant's contention regarding the dismissal of the lesser-inclusory count for criminal possession in the seventh degree was deemed valid, leading to its dismissal under CPL 300.40 (3)(b).
Probable Cause for Arrest and Searchsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the arresting officer had probable cause to stop and search the defendant based on observations by an undercover officer.
Reasoning: The court upheld the suppression hearing's outcome, finding that the arresting officer had probable cause to stop and search the defendant.